inemmo | Leadership Developmenthttps://inemmo.com
Your Leadership Unleashed
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:55:42 +0000 en-GB
hourly
1 https://inemmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-inemmo-icon-square-2_512-x-512--32x32.pnginemmo | Leadership Developmenthttps://inemmo.com
3232Why leaders’ promises must be underpinned by a healthy dose of realityhttps://inemmo.com/leaders-promises-reality/
https://inemmo.com/leaders-promises-reality/#respondFri, 02 Feb 2018 17:41:20 +0000https://inemmo.com/?p=4994Promises are a double-edged sword for businesses – and evidence shows that simply keeping them works better for customers than surpassing them The dangers of a business stockpiling its promises and over-committing itself have been thrown into sharp relief by the traumatic collapse of infrastructure giant Carillion. Following the 15 January announcement that the firm was going into liquidation, the finger pointing began in earnest. No wonder: as the UK’s largest supplier of municipal facilities for a host of different public services, Carillion had instilled in its primary customer – the government – a major dependency, becoming pivotal to the […]

]]>Promises are a double-edged sword for businesses – and evidence shows that simply keeping them works better for customers than surpassing them

The dangers of a business stockpiling its promises and over-committing itself have been thrown into sharp relief by the traumatic collapse of infrastructure giant Carillion. Following the 15 January announcement that the firm was going into liquidation, the finger pointing began in earnest. No wonder: as the UK’s largest supplier of municipal facilities for a host of different public services, Carillion had instilled in its primary customer – the government – a major dependency, becoming pivotal to the fulfilment of numerous policy programmes.

Its failure bodes ill for the delivery of projects in both the near and long term – and for the health of the public purse, should the taxpayer be required to step in.

Among the reams of analysis that have stemmed from Carillion’s predicament, this piece at the Financial Times reveals much about the risks that the company shouldered by making too many promises and overselling its capabilities. For example, it points out that the new Royal Liverpool University Hospital, a Carillion project that was due to open this March, has been plagued with setbacks – the most concerning of which is that cracks have begun to appear in its concrete beams. As a result, it is experiencing severe delays.

The article then notes: “Carillion was not only suffering problems on the Liverpool project but other flagship developments also over-ran, adding to a burden on the company that helped bring about its collapse. Analysts estimate that Carillion may have lost as much as £150 million after more than six months’ delays on a £745m Aberdeen bypass – while the £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Smethwick, near Birmingham, has been heavily delayed by engineering problems.”

It adds that a pattern of over-reach at Carillion was detected by hedge funds as early as 2013. “After noting that Carillion took 120 days to pay its subcontractors,” the piece says, “short sellers decided the company was built on fragile financial foundations.”

There are many lessons that leaders can take away from the Carillion debacle. But the one that covers the greatest ground is akin to the warning that blares out at train platforms across the land: MIND THE GAP – between your promises and your ability to bring them to fruition. Making bold claims for what you’ll be able to deliver is, of course, part and parcel of the salesmanship process that any organisation must navigate in order to win new business. In that milieu, moon-on-a-stick promises are the order of the day, and in some cases are almost weaponised in order to fend off industry competitors who are thronging and drooling around particularly juicy tenders.

However, once you’ve gone through that rite of passage, you have to immortalise your bending-over-backwards patter into something altogether less fanciful: a contract.

It is here that the cold light of day intrudes, and perhaps highlights the first tinge of regret over promised ways of working that were dreamt up pretty much on the spot. For example, tales of clients being promised one, dedicated executive for their workload when, in reality, that person will also be managing another three or four existing accounts, are legendary in the business world. Those sorts of promises are made with painful regularity, and one can hardly be surprised if the employee in question – and the work they’re attempting to battle through – start to suffer.

So, what are ambitious go-getters to do?

For many experts, the way ahead lies in entirely the opposite direction. This piece at US personal-finance and business advice site The Balance advocates that under-promising and over-delivering is the most effective route to a customer’s heart – quite reasonably noting: “Over-promising is a wonderful way to set yourself up for failure. It is also a great way to put your company and customer support teams in a no-win situation. When you over-promise, you are essentially telling your customer that you can do something that you either know you can’t or don’t feel confident that you can fulfil.”

It adds: “Simply put, when you deliver more than what you suggested to your client, and more than what they were expecting, [your] perceived value increases. With increased value, you are much more likely to get referrals and additional sales.”

Sounds marvellous. But does that ethos hold up to evidence-based scrutiny? Well, er… no.

I know – it doesn’t sound right. But a couple of workplace scientists have looked into this, and it’s well worth paying attention to what they found out.

In 2014, University of California San Diego (UCSD) associate professor of marketing Ayelet Gneezy conducted a thorough study of what she termed “promise-exceeding” behaviours among individuals, and how those traits were reflected among the beneficiaries. As Gneezy told online science journal EurekAlert!, her research was sparked by thoughts of how Amazon had routinely delivered packages to her much earlier than expected – and yet she’d never actively bubbled over with appreciation for those outcomes.

Working alongside Booth School of Business behavioural-science specialist Professor Nicholas Epley, Gneezy carried out a series of experiments to gauge levels of gratification following instances of over-delivery. In one such exercise, a group of test subjects was split into equal numbers of ‘promise-makers’ and ‘promise-receivers’. Each receiver was required to solve 40 puzzles. Each maker, meanwhile, was paired with a receiver and tasked with promising that they’d help out with 10 of those puzzles. Under Gneezy and Epley’s directions, certain makers were asked to assist their receivers with either five puzzles (five less than promised), or with 15 (five more). In the latter cases, the over-delivering makers barely even moved the needle on the receivers’ sense of gratitude or appreciation – a result that shocked the researchers.

As Epley explained: “I was surprised that exceeding a promise produced so little meaningful increase in gratitude or appreciation. I had anticipated a modest positive effect, [but] what we actually found was almost no gain from exceeding a promise whatsoever.” The other experiments supported that finding. What did it all mean?

Epley said: “Keeping a promise is valued so highly, above and beyond its ‘objective’ value. When you keep a promise, not only have you done something nice for someone. You’ve also fulfilled a social contract and shown that you’re a reliable and trustworthy person.”

With that in mind, he advises business leaders: “Invest efforts into keeping promises – not in exceeding them.”

It may seem counterintuitive – against the grain of received business wisdom. But there’s a great deal of sense to it. Thanks to the disjunctions between people’s (and companies’) online and true selves, not to mention the war that’s being waged against empirical facts by certain leadership figures around the globe, we live in a world where it’s often hard to tell who deserves our trust. In that environment, when we discover that someone’s word is truly their bond, it is a real pleasure.

And the simple requirement to keep promises should encourage leaders who are jostling for tenders to pitch from a place where ambition and resources are working in harmony, rather than butting heads.

]]>https://inemmo.com/leaders-promises-reality/feed/0What should leaders prioritise in recruitment: trust, or competence?https://inemmo.com/recruitment-trust-competence/
https://inemmo.com/recruitment-trust-competence/#respondFri, 12 Jan 2018 15:58:38 +0000https://inemmo.com/?p=4980In the interests of friendly familiarity, leaders may be tempted to hire people they trust over more competent candidates. But this may not always make for a smooth path Amid the pressure of running a dynamic, ambitious organisation, one of the greatest comforts that a leader could have is the confidence to be able to say, “Someone has my back.” Often, the types of people that a leader wants by their side in a senior management team are those they have become accustomed to and grown to like – to the extent that those individuals are no longer merely professional […]

]]>In the interests of friendly familiarity, leaders may be tempted to hire people they trust over more competent candidates. But this may not always make for a smooth path

Amid the pressure of running a dynamic, ambitious organisation, one of the greatest comforts that a leader could have is the confidence to be able to say, “Someone has my back.” Often, the types of people that a leader wants by their side in a senior management team are those they have become accustomed to and grown to like – to the extent that those individuals are no longer merely professional associates, but bona-fide friends. And these will be the people in whom a leader will be happiest to invest their trust.

A leader cultivates friends across an entire career, throughout numerous organisations. Those who are most likely to be remembered are the people among whom the leader feels most excited, inspired – or possibly even challenged, if the leader happens to relish the more positive end of the conflict spectrum. Alternatively, these friends may represent a collective comfort zone, from which the leader can expect reliable, safe feedback and the bare minimum of friction.

Whatever the case, a leader’s most trusted friends will fall into one preferential bracket or another – and being preferred is always a handy shortcut to securing someone’s trust.

That trust dynamic can have an enormous influence on a leader’s hiring habits.

“Getting the old gang back together”

For 99% of the time, a leader who is going to a new organisation is required to sign a ‘restrictive covenant’, or ‘post-termination restriction’, in which they will agree with the firm they’re about to leave that they won’t recruit from its staff pool once they have moved on. That type of recruitment, commonly known as ‘poaching’, is generally viewed with distaste in business circles, as it encourages dishonesty and unfair competition. Indeed, in some industries, it can even incur regulatory sanctions, as this Financial Conduct Authority statement from early 2014 demonstrates.

Covenants and restrictions – and other measures, such as strict, internal advertising of vacancies – can place limits upon a leader’s ability to “get the old gang back together”. But there are still workarounds: the leader may be able to hire friends they trust from two companies ago, or perhaps encourage a more recent, trusted colleague to go freelance and then scoop them up once they are ‘out in the wild’, so to speak. However. While I fully acknowledge the tremendous importance of trust, I would urge leaders to take great care before they lurch wholeheartedly down this particular road. Because there are some potentially destabilising dangers in betting the entire house on trust, and taking focus off another crucial value: competence.

For example, one such danger may be that you recruit a trusted friend into a new role, and that person’s hitherto impeccable performance drops off because they are unable to get to grips with that position amid a wave of additional newness – eg, a new organisation, with a new culture and a whole new set of targets. Therefore, whether or not they have your back becomes completely irrelevant, because they’re not hitting the mark and are actually making you look bad. To your other senior colleagues, it may even feel as though you have misled them with claims that the person you’ve hired would be a genuine asset.

Taking a gamble on whether that person you trust is actually capable of doing the job that you have in mind for them – a job that, in and of itself, may be untried – is a significant risk.

Also, you need to examine that scenario from the perspective of the person you’ve hired. Expectations go horribly sour overnight if shared dreams somehow don’t work out. If you recruit a trusted friend into your new organisation and the plan hits the buffers, then that could be very hurtful for both of you. You wanted that person to come in so they’d have your back. That person answered your call because they wanted to have your back. There are some rather moving emotions behind those objectives. But if your hire’s approach to the actual job runs aground, then it is not just you who has been exposed – you have inadvertently exposed your trusted friend to a whole storm of criticism, embarrassment and perhaps even hostility from the other people around you.

There would definitely be a “That wasn’t in the script” feeling of deflation in the wake of a scenario like this. But even worse, that overarching aim of harnessing trust would have completely backfired, sowing distrust in its place.

Ever-decreasing inner circles

I myself can completely understand why a leader would be tempted to prize trust above all other factors… and yet, I can also grasp the drawbacks inherent in that line of thinking. I can draw upon examples from my own career to illustrate each side of the coin:

Once, I was headhunted into a leadership role, and everybody I was managing had applied for the same position. In that environment, it would certainly have been handy for me to have someone alongside me who was a friendly face and who’d have my back – because for all the time I was there, I just had a sense that people were waiting for me to fall. There was so much bitterness over the fact that the company had decided to bring in an external figure that no matter how good I was, I would never have been accepted. There was a great deal of pressure as a result. So, based on how I felt while I was in that role, and how it made me wish for an ally, I can see why a leader would be motivated to hire on trust.

On the other hand: in another example, I once restructured a department at a client company and created two associate manager vacancies. A very good manager who I worked with – and trusted – applied for one of the roles… but I didn’t offer it to him. The person I decided to offer it to did not have my back. In fact, much like the previous example, I think that she was waiting for me to come a cropper so that she could assume my responsibilities. But I hired her because I thought that what she had in terms of competence and experience would fit with how we had structured the new-look team. Strangely enough, a few years later, the guy who I didn’t offer the job to ended up getting another job that was quite similar to that role – and he told me that my decision to reject him on that occasion was the best thing that had happened to him, because it made him really step up and work harder.

So, we can see from these examples that trust is not always to be… trusted. There will definitely be biases at the heart of a leader’s decision to recruit primarily on trust – particularly confirmation bias – but those inclinations will not always bear fruit.

For the grimmest insight into where trust goes wrong, we need only refer to cronyism – and for a major example of that, look no further than the Trump administration. We’re just about a year into his Presidency, and many of the allies he initially brought into his inner circle have fallen away – gradually proving themselves less and less worthy of the confidence and trust that he, and others, invested in them.

Trust is a wonderful value – but it must always work in conjunction with a broad, and holistic, set of other qualities.

]]>https://inemmo.com/recruitment-trust-competence/feed/0A leader for all seasons: how to stay fresh and relevanthttps://inemmo.com/leader-stay-fresh-relevant/
https://inemmo.com/leader-stay-fresh-relevant/#respondThu, 11 Jan 2018 18:31:33 +0000https://inemmo.com/?p=4977Leaders may be lucky enough to stay in their roles for long stretches of time – but if they are trapped in a perpetual present, rather than eyeing the future, they will no longer be relevant Before I get into the meat of this topic, I just want to drop off a quick phrase that encapsulates what I’m about to discuss: What got us here, won’t get us there. Keep that in mind… you may see it again very soon – and all will become clear! And with that, here we go… It probably wouldn’t have escaped your attention that […]

]]>Leaders may be lucky enough to stay in their roles for long stretches of time – but if they are trapped in a perpetual present, rather than eyeing the future, they will no longer be relevant

Before I get into the meat of this topic, I just want to drop off a quick phrase that encapsulates what I’m about to discuss: What got us here, won’t get us there. Keep that in mind… you may see it again very soon – and all will become clear! And with that, here we go…

It probably wouldn’t have escaped your attention that Robert Mugabe was recently deposed as leader of Zimbabwe. That watershed – which could easily have been a lot nastier than it was, but miraculously played out within reasonable boundaries – had occurred because, for all his love of power, and his Herculean efforts to keep it over the decades, Mugabe was no longer relevant.

Zimbabwe’s economy has been buckling under the strain of fiscal mismanagement for as long as anyone can remember. And when one considers the headway that is being made in other parts of Africa to kindle the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that thrives in the developed world (see here, here and here), Zimbabweans could be forgiven for feeling more than a little envious.

Robert Mugabe may have been an effective force when it came to fighting his own, personal corner – but he’d ceased to be relevant in an Africa that is changing, becoming more tech savvy and wanting a slice of the economic action that can flow from innovative habits. While Africa was striving to move with the times, Mugabe was stuck in the past.

Pain points

One sign of whether or not a leader is relevant is whether the solutions they are throwing at particular problems are taking effect. One case where that proved not to be so was the final stretch of Andy Clarke’s tenure as chief executive of Asda – a torrid time for the retail chain, in which Clarke launched a turnaround plan on the back of a £1 billion investment to slash prices. Fast-forward two years, to June 2016, and Clarke was clearing his desk. By that point, Asda had suffered seven quarters of falling sales in a row. On that kind of timeline, it’s clear that the medicine isn’t getting to the pain points – and is therefore no longer relevant.

Interestingly, before he stepped down, Clarke had achieved the distinction of being the longest-serving CEO to have led any of the UK’s Big Four supermarkets. However, while it would no doubt be encouraging for any business leader to achieve that kind of record, staying in place for a long time is not, in and of itself, an ideal goal. If it’s going to happen, then it should preferably be a symptom of your achievements – not something that plays out despite your firm’s performance.

Another test of whether leaders are relevant is whether they can spot threats that go to the very heart of their firms’ business models. Back in the summer, Benny Higgins stepped down from his role as CEO of Tesco Bank, following a large-scale cyberattack of November 2016, which siphoned off £2.5 million from 9,000 customers. In a Financial Times report on the attack, security experts suggested that senior figures at Tesco Bank had ignored warnings about their organisation’s cyber weaknesses for several months up to the hack, providing wrongdoers with a clear opportunity.

One of the most critical tasks facing any leader is the requirement to keep watch for threats that could shake customer confidence in their organisation’s core functions. On that basis, it’s easy to understand why, in the wake of the attack, Higgins’ leadership was no longer relevant. After 10 years as CEO, he moved on.

Undoubtedly, a huge chunk of personal pride encourages leaders to hang on to their roles for as long as they can. It’s only natural – and, of course, there’s an argument to say that it suits organisations from the perspective of continuity. But in the long run, that will only work with the aid of two qualities: critical self-reflection, and self-evaluation. They are the assets that are most likely to help a leader keep their sell-by date at bay.

Petering out?

You see, the thing about leaders is that they reach certain professional milestones, and bring their firms with them, by overcoming challenges. But what worked for the challenge you faced yesterday is not always what’s going to work for the challenge that’s coming tomorrow. And the danger that looms over each and every leader is that those who don’t put in the groundwork now to prepare for the challenges that are rolling towards them will start to underperform without even knowing it.

In other words (and I can feel you knew the phrase was on its way back!): What got us here, won’t get us there.

While most of us tend to think that competence is the deciding factor in advancement, that notion was fiercely contested half a century ago in Dr Laurence J Peter’s landmark piece of workplace scholarship, The Peter Principle. The book’s title became the name for Dr Peter’s theory that people are promoted to the point where their competence drops off, and turns into incompetence – so for a leader, there’s actually quite a lot of fear attached to being in a senior position, tasked with steering an organisation through test after test.

If Dr Peter is to be believed, leaders are operating on the outer fringes of their abilities. You may have just blitzed a hefty challenge this week, but will your skills and talents be enough to see you through the one that’s on its way? Will you remain relevant?

Switching surfaces

It’s a similar story when, following a spell of success, a leader moves to a larger organisation, and is tasked with applying the talents they’ve demonstrated to a whole new working environment. Of course, a leader who has transferred from one organisation to another would be tempted to do exactly the same things in their new surroundings as they did in their previous milieu, because those things got them noticed in the first place. Why wouldn’t someone have that psychological reflex?

But what was relevant for their previous firm may not be relevant for the one they’ve just joined. Its challenges may be very different – and the reason the leader has been brought in is because the board is counting on them to have the required intellectual and imaginative flexibility to plug into what the organisation needs, in order to fulfil its business goals. That puts a responsibility on the leader’s shoulders to be as adaptable as possible.

The only way that can be achieved is through development – and the type of self-awareness that will help you understand why you need it. Whether it’s through coaching, training or being mentored, you will only be relevant for what is coming tomorrow if you keep yourself fresh, and open to new ideas.

Look at Rafa Nadal. Early in his career, he made a name for himself for being the greatest clay-court player on the circuit, which was fabulous – but experts said he was restricted to that surface and wouldn’t do well at Wimbledon. But then, all of a sudden, he started to get really good at playing on grass. What changed? It was his adaptability, rising to meet the threshold of his ambition, ensuring that he would be relevant not just in one type of tennis – but across the whole game. He was using the foundation of his skillset, but was taking it to new places and adjusting to the demands of his new surroundings.

]]>https://inemmo.com/leader-stay-fresh-relevant/feed/0Why leaders should join the mindfulness missionhttps://inemmo.com/leaders-mindfulness-mission/
https://inemmo.com/leaders-mindfulness-mission/#respondFri, 08 Dec 2017 13:37:44 +0000https://inemmo.com/?p=4872Mindfulness is sometimes dismissed in business circles as New Age fluff – yet it has a powerful knack for refocusing employees and helping them boost their performance It’s no exaggeration to say that workplaces often feel like the working definition of chaos. Even when it isn’t necessarily the case that chaos is underway, the busiest phases routinely make us think that it is. The abundance of work that we need to get through during those times is often expressed in our physical actions. Gestures and tics become showier; struts down office corridors or around workstations grow more urgent and emphatic; […]

]]>Mindfulness is sometimes dismissed in business circles as New Age fluff – yet it has a powerful knack for refocusing employees and helping them boost their performance

It’s no exaggeration to say that workplaces often feel like the working definition of chaos. Even when it isn’t necessarily the case that chaos is underway, the busiest phases routinely make us think that it is. The abundance of work that we need to get through during those times is often expressed in our physical actions. Gestures and tics become showier; struts down office corridors or around workstations grow more urgent and emphatic; typing gets aggressively louder – and voices climb in pitch. Those are the symptoms of organisations in full flow, and many workers find them unsettling. Could mindfulness be the cure?

There is growing evidence that it is. But for the most part, there’s still a lot of haziness out there in the workforce about what mindfulness actually is, let alone what it does, or how it works. More sceptical or scornful voices have dismissed mindfulness entirely as New Age vagary that may well have taken root in the self-help sections of our high-street book shops, but was never designed to get a grip on the slippery electricity of the workplace. But this overlooks one of the most basic truths behind mindfulness: in the end, it’s not a collection of floaty or far-fetched mantras – in fact, it’s extremely practical.

Workplace activity of the types I described above can, for many workers, induce stress. Stress automatically leads to a detached state, as the mind strives to seek a refuge from its uncomfortable and debilitating effects. Along with that detached state comes rumination –self-recriminatory thought patterns that psychologists routinely cite as harmful to people’s long-term mental states, as they can fester in between our other thoughts and gradually become habitual. This can happen without the ruminant even realising that they are doing it – but beneath that self-made perception filter, the rumination is slowly picking apart their self-esteem and ability to concentrate.

Those habits of the mind, of course, spawn problems of the body. We all recognise them: tight chests; bunched-up stomach muscles; perspiration; butterflies; shakiness; chills – any one of those would be a nasty obstacle for people who are trying to fulfil their workplace duties to the best of their ability. But more often than not, those who are suffering from stress are presented with at least three or four selections from that maddening menu.

Mindfulness is the art of pressing the reset button; of clearing down those mental and physical ill effects and regaining presence and focus. And who, quite frankly, wouldn’t want that? Given the potential benefits, it seems like a strange set of tools to disdain or laugh off. Yes, it involves an element of meditation – but that’s hardly something to be embarrassed about, particularly when it’s so easy to consider as an offshoot of our other, restful leisure activities, such as taking 40 winks in an armchair. The major difference being that it’s significantly more constructive!

Far from being New Age vagaries, the benefits of mindfulness are clinically proven. Last year, a team from the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia carried out an independent study of a firm that was trialling a simple, online mindfulness-training tool developed by Canadian specialists. The programme’s stripped-down approach to mindfulness asked employees to ‘take five’ in different workplace scenarios – whether they involved attending meetings, talking to colleagues or eating lunch. The object of the ‘take five’ exercise was to encourage staff to use that very short timeframe to either sharpen their focus in work mode, or to meditate and contemplate in break mode.

Texts and emails from the training platform – plus a buddy system that put the workers in mutually supportive pairs – spurred the test subjects to stick at it. By applying the short spells of mindfulness across periods of days or weeks, the workers soon found that they were able to improve their clarity and/or calm across longer stretches of time each day. Opening the door to mindfulness enabled its influence to gradually spread.

According to Sauder professor of organisational behaviour Daniel Skarlicki, workers in the trial boosted their abilities to learn, manage stress and listen to others. “I was sceptical initially as a scientist,” he said. “I was very curious to find out whether a 30-day challenge which is done remotely in small bites would actually have the impact that we’re seeing in some of the other mindfulness programs that we’re studying. But we’ve now discovered through a series of studies and other colleagues throughout the world that it works. It’s not a fad. It’s something that has a tangible payoff for organisations and individuals.”

It’s not the only time in recent years that mindfulness has been put under a scientific microscope. In 2013, US researchers from Rice University and the University of Tulsa found that mindfulness can even help to ease staff churn. In their analysis of the technique within a “dynamic service industry context”, they found evidence for a “positive relationship between workplace mindfulness and job performance” that holds when accounting for all three, classic employee engagement dimensions – namely, vigour, dedication and absorption. In line with that, the researchers also uncovered an inverse relationship between the uptake of workplace mindfulness and staff turnover intentions.

It’s enormously helpful that these research endeavours exist, because it means that you don’t need to just take my word for it. Mindfulness works. And whether you’re a leader of a busy firm full of employees who may be feeling the pangs of stress, or perhaps in need of a safe refuge from those pangs yourself, mindfulness is something that you can offer or take to heart in order to find your way back to daylight. With so much to gain through such simple means, you really have nothing to lose.

THREE TIPS FOR GETTING STARTEDHere are some initial steps you can take to focus your thoughts on the mindfulness mission…

1. Write a goal statement
What do you want to achieve with your mindfulness sessions, and how do you want to achieve it? Writing a goal statement will help you to lay down a path so that you know where you’re going.

Write notes on the stress areas that you’re concerned about, and how often you plan to meditate. This is NOT like a massive business plan. It is a page to get yourself up and running. Also, bear in mind that 15 minutes of meditation per day is great.

The end result can be as loose and unstructured as you like – and though it helps to save your pages, they are never to be shown to anyone else. They are your sounding boards, and indeed receptacles, for internal clutter that may be obscuring more ordered thoughts.

3. Keep checking whether you are in your ‘Window of Tolerance’

The Window of Tolerance is a core mindfulness concept. It is a visual ready-reckoner that helps you to check whether you’re in a state of ‘hyper-arousal’ (anxious and panicky), ‘hypo-arousal’ (numb and disconnected), or in your ‘optimal arousal zone’ (settled and focused). The version of the Window above comes from St Michael’s Hospital in Ontario, Canada. For further thoughts on how to use it, check out the Hospital’s online fact sheet.

]]>https://inemmo.com/leaders-mindfulness-mission/feed/0How corporate cultures must change to stamp out sexual harassmenthttps://inemmo.com/corporate-cultures-sexual-harassment/
https://inemmo.com/corporate-cultures-sexual-harassment/#respondSun, 26 Nov 2017 15:29:08 +0000https://inemmo.com/?p=4844As careers crumble in the US film industry and UK politics, we explore the organisational costs of sexual harassment, and how the root causes can be effectively tackled For anyone with even the faintest interest in the people politics behind the silver screen, the past month has been a grim cavalcade of dismaying revelations. Like boulders rolling down a mountain to become an avalanche, accusations of sexual harassment, serious sexual assault and rape, initially revolving around Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, have now ranged far and wide – mowing down careers not just on America’s west coast, but in the UK’s […]

]]>As careers crumble in the US film industry and UK politics, we explore the organisational costs of sexual harassment, and how the root causes can be effectively tackled

For anyone with even the faintest interest in the people politics behind the silver screen, the past month has been a grim cavalcade of dismaying revelations. Like boulders rolling down a mountain to become an avalanche, accusations of sexual harassment, serious sexual assault and rape, initially revolving around Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, have now ranged far and wide – mowing down careers not just on America’s west coast, but in the UK’s seat of government, too.

Film is, in many ways, a disorienting field. While the industry’s cinematic output is awash with glamour, and red-carpet premieres exert a magnetic pull on the general public, that sheen of cutting-edge artistry, posh frocks and sharp suits conceals a world of ruthless appetites. Money is both the propellant and the goal, status can be boosted or ruined in the space of a quick phone call, and young people made vulnerable by their ambitions are urged to show how far they are prepared to go in order to taste the success they crave.

The hours are brutally long, the financial stakes are high – and then, on top of that, there’s the industry’s unique complication, which is that so many people in it are pretending to be other people, in order to tell tales that didn’t really happen. The psychological effects of being strung out with stress in a climate of deliberate fiction and artifice surely provide workers with enough to endure without being preyed upon, too. By any assessment, film is a hall of mirrors… one perfectly designed to distort already enlarged personality traits out of all proportion, and amplify baser sensibilities to their ugliest extremes.

Organisational chaos

All of which comes with a heavy price when the dam bursts on decades’ worth of pent-up anger over industry-wide sexual harassment, and key figures’ reputations are destroyed at a stroke. In the fallout of the allegations – and the Twitter-driven ‘#metoo’ campaign they unleashed – we have seen Hollywood companies wrestle with serious organisational challenges as their carefully laid plans have spun into disarray. In just the single case of The Weinstein Company (TWC), for example:

one third of the board resigned in the days after the claims against its founder erupted;

Weinstein himself was fired from his position at the company’s helm, then resigned his seat on the board;

venture-capital firm Colony Capital – a leading backer – pulled the plug on its funding, with its executive chairman Thomas Barrack describing TWC as “a patient that’s dying on the table”;

advertising giant WPP – another backer – considered withdrawing its support, with its executive vice president Lance Maerov lukewarm about maintaining his TWC board seat;

TWC mulled a full-scale rebrand as a quick means of distancing itself from its errant founder.

They were only the start of Hollywood’s business shockwaves. Following allegations of sexual harassment and serious sexual assault against Kevin Spacey – which arose in the wake of the Weinstein flood – Sony announced that it would delete the actor from its finished, upcoming film All the Money in the World. The studio said that it would re-shoot all of Spacey’s scenes with a new actor, in a scramble tipped to cost more than $10m. At the same time, Netflix fired Spacey from its flagship drama House of Cards, and scrapped a feature film he’d completed with them. When allegations of sexual misconduct began to swirl around actor-comedian Louis CK, the release of his upcoming film I Love You Daddy was cancelled, and he was fired from a voice role on an animated feature for kids.

It’s no exaggeration to describe all of the above as organisational and financial chaos. This is the business cost of sexual harassment. If it is enabled and allowed to carry on undeterred, thereby feeding victims’ fury, don’t be surprised that when the powder keg finally explodes, organisations are left with shattered plans and significant expenses.

Responsible actors

When the chaos of sexual harassment impacts upon the future direction of a country, though, the organisational stakes are even higher – as we witnessed when the tide of #metoo allegations rolled towards Westminster, sweeping MP Michael Fallon from the role of defence secretary. Speculation raged over how Fallon’s departure would affect the composition and structural soundness of a UK government already damaged by an election misfire and infighting over Brexit.

As I explained recently, that Brexit issue is a pretty big deal. We could do without the consequences of sexual harassment throwing even more uncertainty into the already volatile process of negotiating our future relationship with Europe.

Yet amid all these concerns over organisational effects, we must always bear in mind that the human impacts and costs of sexual harassment are of paramount importance. They are the forces that are driving the juggernaut of allegations that, even as I write this, continues to train its full-beam headlights on more and more famous names. And as it rumbles on, the message must be that if organisations want to be free of the chaos and financial wreckage that sexual harassment leaves behind, they must urgently ensure that they are responsible actors in the arena of human experience.

Competitive instinct

What is at the root of this malaise? Well, as I pointed out in our September blog about the recent leadership crisis at Uber, culture decides whether the interpersonal relationships within an organisation stand or fall. Culture determines the quality of those relationships. Over the past few years, our clients – and many other organisations – have had to grapple with the question, “What is the ideal culture for us?” That has driven a lot of activity around establishing values and mission, plus how to live by them, and a host of competencies and skills associated with those initiatives.

In tandem with that, we have never been more regulated in business, whether internally or externally, than we do today. In addition to rules on sexual harassment, there are provisions for data protection, bullying and discrimination – we’re extremely PC about what we say to each other in the workplace and how we conduct ourselves. But somehow, it doesn’t seem to be enough. At the height of the #metoo campaign, I listened to a talk-radio phone-in where a female caller said that she didn’t know any woman who hasn’t been sexually harassed. It’s moments like that when you realise that this issue is far bigger than most of us think it is.

Considering how the harassment crisis has flowed around the world from the US, I see huge parallels between the #metoo watershed and the 2008 credit crunch. At that time, the initial wave of corporate failures in the financial industry concerned US firms with disastrous cultures, in which a ‘Win At All Costs’ mentality had mushroomed out of control – with the whole sector paying the price. It doesn’t take much to see from the way in which figures named in the #metoo campaign have allegedly tried to outwit and/or gag their accusers that the same mentality is fuelling this trend of sexual harassment.

With that in mind, leaders need to learn – fast – that the competitive instinct isn’t an all-consuming, be-all-end-all driver of their organisations’ success. What we desperately need right now is a consciousness-raising effort around what is often seen as the opposite of competitiveness – namely, collaboration – to ensure that workplace cultures are reined back into some sort of balance. In the workplace, we should all think ourselves responsible ‘to’ and ‘for’ each other. In this respect, we must have each other’s backs. We should be free to say, “this behaviour will not be tolerated in our organisation”; providing a climate in which personal accountability and dignity doesn’t just have more of a fighting chance, but is actively championed. It doesn’t mean that we have to stop being competitive. It simply means that we acknowledge that our duty of care to our people is as important as – and actually underpins – our strategic aims.